i haven't worked with graphics until now.. so I have not much ideas about using graphics objects in flash cs6.
I want to move this character depending if the person has pressed a button and stop his movement once the button is released. I looked up on how to go about this process.. so far one thing that kept coming up was to turn my spritesheet into graphics.. but after that i couldn't really find anything on how to integrate this into actionscript. Plus when I convert an object into graphics it doesn't give me options to assign it a class name. so can somebody give me a good breakdown on what is the purpose of these graphics objects? and how should I go about making a sprite move?
Disregard information concerning sprite sheets. These are used as a completely different method of graphics rendering that I'm not going to cover here; for more advanced, high performance applications and games.
When you say Graphics, I am assuming that you mean you've created some drawings that you've converted to a Graphic like this:
These types of objects are used purely for timeline animation. What you want to use here is the type MovieClip. When you use this type, you'll be able to give the object a class name like you mentioned:
After doing this, you'll be able to refer to that library symbol in ActionScript like this:
var gr:MyGraphic = new MyGraphic();
addChild(gr);
Related
I'm brand new to Flash Professional and wanted to make a short 10 second clip. Instead of looking into using tweens and symbols (I wish I did) I used Flash Professional as a flip book, illustrating sketches for each keyframe.
I'm now in the colouring process and want to know if there is a way to colour an object (I've drawn with the brush tool) throughout multiple frames. is this even possible?
I understand there are some short cuts to repetitive tasks using ActionScript. But, once again I am brand new to Flash Professional and haven't tried anything in the ActionScript. I do however have a very basic knowledge of HTML coding and some javaScript if it helps at all…
If there is an alternate solution like exporting the file to another Adobe program that has a "colouring multiple frames" feature, that would be great too.
Sorry to say, to do that, you WILL have to work with symbols. However, this is an easy fix.
Select the object you want to color, click Modify--> Convert to Symbol. Give it a good name, and set it to MovieClip. Click OK.
Now, in the Library panel, double-click the icon next to your symbol name. Color as you wish.
There are multiple ways to put this on your timeline. You could replace each instance of that drawing with the symbol. Or, better, you could create a new layer with only one keyframe (and regular frames after that to the end of your animation. Place your object on that layer, and then remove all the old versions of that drawing.
NOTE: You will need to be mindful of where in the stack you put layers, as that sets the z-index of everything on that layer.
I'm a beginner to AS3 and programming in general, but have learned enough that I want to now start learning how to render animations on the screen. These are the methods that I know of from two days of "researching" on google.
I'm not in a situation where I could afford to take courses from an educational institution, so my only means of learning are through online sources.
Update an objects x or y positions in a loop on every frame. Very basic. Of course any kind of advanced animation (say, showing a character running) is not possible with this method alone.
Using Flash and creating animation on a movie clip's timeline and, combined with moving the position of the object we can achieve some proper animation this way. However I cannot afford Flash, so this is not an option available to me. It also doesn't seem to be a popular option among more experienced programmers either (I think, due to having poor performance when lots of objects animating on the screen?)
Using a sprite sheet and then blitting the relevant image from the sprite sheet onto the screen.
Is there any other way to put an image from a sprite sheet onto the screen other than blitting?
And what other methods of rendering animation are available?
Some online websites claim that blitting is all I'll ever need, but I want to know all the options available so I could choose the most appropriate one for any given situation.
Any help would be appreciated :)
Another option for blitting is Stage3D. Take a look at Starling for 2D animations.
Blitting would be my best opinion. The only other thing I can think of is manually taking the images from the sprite sheet and putting it into each frame of an animation.
To render animation, you can create a frame in a MovieClip and convert it into a MovieClip and name the frame 'running'. Then you need to create an Enter Frame event where the MovieClip's instance name is 'Guy' and in the code on the function write 'Guy.x += 5;' to make your MovieClip go 5 pixels to the right every frame and also in the function write "Guy.gotoAndStop('running');"
Use TweenMax engine for better animation purposes. Easy coding, more Animation!!
I'm creating a game using Flash Develop and ActionScript 3.0 and I can't figure out how to make a "Character Creation" menu, in the sense that, I want to animate a movieclip full of images (head, torso, arms, etc.) and then change out any image with another.
So I'd like players to be able to choose what kind of sunglasses they want their character to have, for example, and the different sunglasses will keep the animation that I made with the original ones.
From what I know so far I can export a movie clip as a .swf and use it as such, but how do I change out images and keep the animation?
Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
I don't know how much actionscript you know.. but if you just want an idea how to do it and not the whole thing in code...
I would personally make different movie clips for the different parts of the body that can be changed and then change frames in that move clip. For example one movie clip with different hairstyles, one with (sun)glasses and so on.. and then just go to then next frame in the "hairMC" to change the hairstyle.
The way I'd do it is to create MovieClips that all implement the same Interface and then have other MC's higher up that know how to use the particular Interface. For example, if you had an IArm, it might know how to swing and how to grasp (and it might grasp by using an IHand). A fat ITorso might attach the arms at a different spot than a thin one.
And your Character might have an IHead, ITorso, etc. When you created a Character, you could either pass in these components via the constructor (I'm not a big fan of constructor arguments for Views, but it's one way to do this), or you can expose setters on your Character that allow you to set these properties one at a time.
This gives you tremendous flexibility in how to put your character together--none of the pieces know precisely how the others are put together, but the methods they need to operate on are in place, so you can put in any implementation you can think of.
My questioin is pretty much in the title, Why do I keep reading in actionscript 3.0 that its a good idea to seperate the 'mind' from the 'object' when writing code?
Thanks for any help, this is confusing the hell out of me.
If you're asking why graphics are separated from the positioning, movement and physics; take this tree I've drawn:
In the tree you'll see that Entity has two properties:
Graphics - what the entity should look like.
Body - where the entity should be.
Moving down, you will see that there are several things that extend Entity - most notable are the Player and the Enemy classes.
Extending my Entity class above, I can easily change what should be used as the graphics and also provide slightly different bodies. For example, the player and enemies will have obviously different appearances, and the Tree class won't need to use a Body that deals with values like velocity because it doesn't move.
Here are some advantages of the above:
We can create entities that don't have graphics, saving performance and memory.
We can use different types of graphics rather than having to stick to MovieClip if you had extended MovieClip with your Entity class.
We can add additional logic into the Graphics class such as being able to easily covert a Sprite or MovieClip into a sprite sheet for better performance.
The graphics will be easier to manage and more lightweight (as opposed to if it were auto-bundled with each entity).
Physics will be easier to deal with without needing to know about graphics.
The Body can be updated without immediate effects on the graphics.
Your understanding of physics being completely unrelated to appearance will improve significantly.
Currently I'm writing an app. If I want to avoid Singletons, do I have to simply pass references of everything around?
For example,
I have a "main" class.
Class: Main
+---- Screen
+---- Camera
+---- Terrain
+---- Vehicle
+---- PhysicsWorld
It contains my Camera, Terrain, and Vehicle,etc classes. Now, I have issues when I'm creating say, the Terrain object. Terrain wants to access Main classes Screen object so it can add its Terrain Graphics to the screen. It also wants to know about the Camera object for when it is drawing so it knows what scale to draw it. It also wants to know about my PhysicsWorld object so it can add itself to the physics engine.
Do I have to always lug these objects back and forth between constructors? I mean, when I create a Terrain object, do I simply have to pass around my screen object, my physicsWorld, camera, etc?
Another random scenario I have, is now.. inside my Vehicle class I need to call a Restart() method on my Main class. Does this mean I have to pass an instance of main to Vehicle? Really??
It feels cumbersome to constantly have to pass 4-5 things to my classes, especially in my scenario now where almost every in-game object I have needs a screen, physics, camera info, etc.
Any suggestions?
It feels cumbersome to constantly have
to pass 4-5 things to my classes,
especially in my scenario now where
almost every in-game object I have
needs a screen, physics, camera info,
etc.
Then the correct question to ask is "why do I need all 5 objects in all my classes?"
Why on Earth does every in-gmae object need any of the mentioned things? An in-game object needs a position and whatever it needs to process its behavior. Then a separate renderer can, you know, render, the object. Which means that only the renderer needs the camera info and screen.
The physics could go either way. You could have a separate physics entity which updates the game object, or you could pass that physics object to every game object. But even if you do pass that around, we're down to one out of the three objects listed. :)
That's why globals and singletons are often best avoided. They disguise your dependencies so you end up with far more dependencies between your objects than you actually need. And then it becomes almost impossible to remove the globals.
However, if you do stick with globals, do yourself a favor, and at least avoid singletons. You don't need the additional constraints enforced by a singleton.
Terrain wants to access Main classes
Screen object so it can add its
Terrain Graphics to the screen. It
also wants to know about the Camera
object for when it is drawing so it
knows what scale to draw it. It also
wants to know about my PhysicsWorld
object so it can add itself to the
physics engine.
The terrain object needs to know one thing: What is the terrain like. Someone else can take responsibility for rendering it. That someone will need to know about the camera, screen and terrain graphics, sure, which suggests that the same object might plausibly be able to do other tasks involving these objects (such as other rendering tasks).
Why should the terrain care about what scale it's drawn in? It needs to know the scale ingame, but not the scale in camera-space. And why can't someone else add the terrain to the physics engine? The main function might be able to do that, even. Create terrain, create physics engine, register terrain with physics engine, start game.
I don't know ActionScript, but assuming variables are passed by reference, the least you could do is construct a 'Environment' class holding Camera, Screen, Terrain, PhysicsWorld which you pass to the instances.
I have the exact same problem (also in actionscript 3, coincidentally).
I have been working on an RTS for flash and had found myself needing to pass around large numbers of references to each new class (e.g., gameGrid, currentSelection, visibleUnits, etc.).
I eventually realised that what I really should be doing is to have every class maintain it's own properties, and instead pass around references to these classes, (well objects).
But anyway, now what I'm doing is having static variables containing references to commonly used objects such as the main stage, interface, engine and display area inside a class called RTSGlobals. I'm also putting constants such as the screen size in there.
I know this doesn't really answer your question, but I figure sometimes it is worth ignoring a bit of OOP good practice in favour of an efficient solution.
If someone has a does have a good practice solution though, please tell :)
I suggest you take a look at XNA's samples projects (google it). They're well designed and might give you some hints.
Also, since you're using AS3, you could use the event system to dispatch message to other entities. For example, instead of passing your Main to your Vehicle class, make your Main (or whatever else interested) a listener of your Vehicle class. Then, let's say the car crash and you want to restart the game, dispatch an event, for example CAR_CRASHED. The listeners of your car should do something based on this message. If you want to understand the event system, type EventDispatcher, highlight it and hit F1 in your Flash IDE.